https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Karolina Surma from comment #2) > Questions from package review: > > [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > This is too cryptic for me and I can't find the proper documentation in > Packaging Guidelines. Any pointers? I have never seen this before, will dig. > [?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > Our .so file is not a development file. Do I want or not want it in ld path? > How do I verify? All Python extension modules produce this bogus report from Fedora Review. /usr/lib64/python*/* is not in ld path. This is not an issue. You can verify with: $ ld --verbose | grep SEARCH_DIR SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib"); -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277759%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
